Thursday, July 13, 2006

American Criminal Liberties Union: STOP THE ACLU Blogburst!

I am going to assume that most people can agree that America's population isfound across a vast political spectrum. From libertarians and liberals tomoderates and conservatives we find each other across a broad field on ideas andissues. Many times we can all agree that certain things are problems withinsociety yet be on the opposite extremes on how to solve that problem. One ofthe problems of society that most people can agree on is that of crime. Thesolution to reducing this problem most likely is found somewhere in the middleand not the extremes.

One of the purposes of the Constitution is to ensure domestictranquility. Due process, the Fifth Amendment right, is a procedural right, onethat defines the methods that can properly be used to ensure domestictranquility. Without both, there can be no liberty. Domestic tranquility caneasily be achieved without respect for due process, as dictatorships throughouthistory have shown. It is also quite possible to have a society where due process is respected-even considered sacrosanct-and still lack fordomestic tranquility. The latter predicament more closely resembles thesituation in the United States today.Source

The ACLU in its extreme ideals of society unravels due process from the reasonsit was created to serve. The ACLU maintains that it is their purpose to ensuredue process and the police to tend to domestic tranquility. I agree that theroles should be separate. I think the opposite would be an invitation todisaster. The ACLU's sincerity in their statement might be more believable if,as we shall show, they were not so often in opposition of law enforcement. Itis generally accepted that domestic tranquility is absolutely necessary to theprocess of liberty. What is often less understood is how the exclusive concernfor due process can also be damaging to liberty.

I think we can all agree on how important domestic tranquility is to maintaining liberty. What good are all of our freedoms ifwe are afraid to practice them? The only liberties worth having are ones thatwe can enjoy without fear. This simply can't be done if a society is filledwith crime and violence.

The ACLU do not share these moderate views on society. They have a much moreextreme viewpoint.

"According to the ACLU," writes Jeffrey Leeds, "there is no right tolive in a quiet or pleasant society, but there is a right to speak, to seek topersuade, to have unpopular or even stupid views. Moreover, there is no righteven to live in a safe society. The ACLU will work to vindicate a convictedcriminal's rights to due process, even if it means setting a killer free."Source

Leeds isn't exaggerating. One ACLU official Dorothy Ehrlich can be quoted assaying, "the citizens' need to be 'free from criminal activity'....is not, inthe legal sense, a 'right' at all (and thus is nowhere mentioned in the Bill of Rights)but, rather, an essential social good, like fire prevention, or adequate medicalcare, or the prevention of famine." Source

Funny that an official from the ACLU is stating that if a right isn't mentionedin the Constitution then it isn't a right at all. After all, this is theorganization that defends abortion on demand, and the sale of child porn. These are notmentioned in the Constitution either.

The ACLU's skewed views toward crime can also be seen in its approach towardcrime victims. The ACLU has shown very little interest in the rights of crimevictims. When it comes down to it, the rights of criminals seem to alwaysoverride the rights of the victims. For example, the ACLU opposes the use of acrime victim impact statement in capital sentencing because it "unconstitutionally requiresconsideration of factors which have no bearing on the defendant's responsibilityor guilt." Of course the courts have ruled otherwise.

While the ACLU says they have our liberty as its mission, its policies in thearea of criminal justice have only aggravated and accelerated the alreadyterrible problems of maintaining domestic tranquility. Their opposition to the death penalty doesn't bother me by itself.It is the ACLU general attitude toward criminal justice as a whole that I deemdangerous. Throughout its history it has fought many court battles to:

Eliminate all prison sentencing from criminal judicial procedureexcept in a few "extreme" cases of utter incorrigibility-and only then as thepenalty of last resort.Source

Let me briefly interrupt my list for a little perspective on this particularpolicy.

In conjunction with their opposition to the death penalty in allcases this particular policy is quite disturbing to me. It would seemthat the ACLU wants rehabilitation and probation to be the primary means ofpreventing crime in all but the most extreme cases.

"Deprivation of an individual's physical freedom is one of the mostsevere interferences with liberty that the state can impose. Moreover,imprisonment is harsh, frequently counterproductive, and costly." This explainswhy the ACLU holds that "a suspended sentence with probation should be thepreferred sentence, to be chosen generally unless the circumstances plainly callfor greater severity." The Union favors alternative sentencing and lists thereintegration of the offender into the community as "the most appropriatecorrectional approach." Here's the clincher: "probation should be authorized bythe legislature in every case and exceptions to the principle are not favored."Prior to 1991, when this policy was revised, the Union said that only suchserious crimes as "murder or treason" should qualify as exceptions. Theexplicit referencing of those two crimes was deleted because of the publicembarrassment it caused the organization.Source

Let us continue with the list:

Disallow capital punishment in any and allsituations as a violation of the constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment"clause;

Discredit deterrence as a basis for incarceration;

Oppose rehabilitative confinement;

Block all sentencing guidelines that seek restitution to the victims of criminalbehavior;

Mandate suspended sentences with probation as the primary form of "treatment"for criminal offenders;

Make most surveillance operations, stakeout procedures, and community crackdownsillegal;

Prohibit the eviction of drug dealers and other incorrigibles from publichousing projects;

Deregulate and decriminalize all "victimless crimes"-such as prostitution, drug use and abuse, gambling, sodomy, or the production ,exhibition, and sale of vile and obscene materials-despite the proven linkbetween such vices and serious crime.Source

There is one recommendation that the ACLU makes on how to stem crime: strong gun controllegislation. It adopted its first gun-control policy in the latesixties which was actually pretty reasonable. For the sake of brevity on such abroad topic I will not quote it. Suffice it to say that most of today'sliberals would not agree with it.

“The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court’s long-standinginterpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] thatthe individual’s right to bear arms applies only to the preservation orefficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and militarypurposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionallyprotected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation offirearms.”

The ACLU's approach to crime, its prevention, and punishment clearly are not inthe mainstream opinion of most Americans. The organization has consistentlybeen an adversary of law enforcement. The Union's perspective is almostentirely focused on the criminal which makes many people conclude that ratherbeing a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU is actually the champion of criminal liberties.

Roger Baldwin once actually admitted that he could not in goodconscience serve on a jury because he simply "would never take part inconvicting anyone." When asked how society could possibly continue to existwithout some sort of penal justice system, eh tersely snapped, "That's yourproblem."Source

The ACLU's pandering to criminals, lack of interest in true victims, andopposition to law enforcement are not solutions to society's burden with crime.I advise everyone to use common sense, and not to follow the extreme positionsof the ACLU when it comes to preventing and punishing crime.